LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 17 AUGUST 2021
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Court of Criminal Appeal
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing via Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston and Risdon Prison Complex
Bradley Mark Riley
Philip James Airey
Kyam Keith Broadby
In Chambers, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Telephone Directions Hearing
Borg Manufacturing Pty Ltd
v
John Van’t Sant and anor
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00pm
For Sentence
Todd Michael Walker
4:15pm
For Mention via video link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston and Risdon Prison Complex
Michael John Cowie
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing
Stuart Robert Loone
v
Jason Shaun Lyons
Senior Sergeant Russell Judges
v
Leon Ivan Stephenson
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing
AJC
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30am
For sentence
Jacob Anthony Burdon
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARTIN
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Hearing
Vauban Pty Ltd v The Commissioner of State Revenue
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:30a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Wendy Lynette Dowling and anor v Deanne Emmerson and ors
For Mention
Alma Royo Sulman and ors v Murray Edward Broughton
11:00a.m.
For R414 Directions Hearing
Motor Accidents Insurance Board v Mark Spencer Deuble
12:00p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Mark Gerard Freeman by his administrator TPT Wealth Ltd v Public Trustee
For Directions Hearing
Stephen Paul Freeman v Public Trustee as Executor of the Will of Margaret Mary Freeman
For Directions Hearing
Jacob Michael McCallum and anor v Geoffrey Robert McCallum as legal personal representative of Mary Elizabeth McCallum (deceased)
For Directions Hearing
Public Trustee as trustee of the Ronald David Marriott Trust
For Directions Hearing
Vibe Tasmania Pty Ltd ACN: 120 946 447 v J2J Ventures Pty Ltd ACN 611 582 784
For Directions Hearing
2:15p.m. via MS Teams
For Directions Hearing
The State Of Tasmania v Duncan Cameron McPherson
For Directions Hearing
Terri Marie McDougall v Anton Jean-Pierre Roberts
For Directions Hearing
Nadine Parry and anor v Anton Jean-Pierre Roberts
For Directions Hearing
TASCO 1 Pty Ltd and anor v CAEG Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Graham Woodhouse Conveyancing and ors
For Directions Hearing
The Estate of the late Robert Allan Smith
For Directions Hearing
Ann Marise Garling v Tony Patiniotis
For Directions Hearing
Masonic Care Tasmania Inc v R and S Rosier Constructions Pty Ltd (ACN 108 047 892) and ors
LAUNCESTON
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Court of Criminal Appeal
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing via Court 7 Salamanca Place, Hobart, and Risdon Prison Complex
Bradley Mark Riley
Philip James Airey
Kyam Keith Broadby
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Mention via video link from Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart and Risdon Prison Complex
Michael John Cowie
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Consent
Zack Corey Haase
For Trial
Timothy Michael Darren Langmead
2.15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
ARS
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 268
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania heard an appeal against conviction and sentence in the case of Bradley Mark Riley, Philip James Airey, Kyam Keith Broadby. The appellants were convicted of drug trafficking offences under the Tasmania Drugs of Dependence Act 1991. The legal issues before the court were the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction and the appropriateness of the sentences imposed. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, but that the sentences were excessive. The sentences were reduced, with Riley receiving a sentence of six years and six months imprisonment, Airey receiving a sentence of five years imprisonment, and Broadby receiving a sentence of three years and eight months imprisonment.
The court considered the principles of sentencing for drug trafficking offences, including the need to deter and punish the appellants, and to protect the community from the harm caused by drug trafficking. The court also considered the individual circumstances of each appellant, including their backgrounds, the extent of their involvement in the drug trafficking offences, and the mitigating factors that were presented on their behalf. The court found that the appellants had shown remorse and had cooperated with the police investigation, and that their involvement in the drug trafficking offences was not at the highest level. However, the court also found that the appellants had been involved in a significant drug trafficking operation, and that their conduct had caused significant harm to the community.
The court reduced the sentences imposed by the trial judge, taking into account the principles of sentencing and the individual circumstances of each appellant. The court found that the sentences imposed by the trial judge were excessive, and that the appellants should receive sentences that reflected the seriousness of their offending, while also taking into account the mitigating factors that were presented on their behalf. The court ordered that the sentences be reduced, with Riley receiving a sentence of six years and six months imprisonment, Airey receiving a sentence of five years imprisonment, and Broadby receiving a sentence of three years and eight months imprisonment.
The court made orders for the appellants to be returned to custody to serve their reduced sentences. The court also ordered that the appellants be eligible for parole after serving two-thirds of their sentences. The court noted that the appellants had shown remorse and had cooperated with the police investigation, and that their reduced sentences reflected this. The court emphasised the importance of deterring and punishing drug trafficking offences, while also taking into account the individual circumstances of each offender.
The court considered the principles of sentencing for drug trafficking offences, including the need to deter and punish the appellants, and to protect the community from the harm caused by drug trafficking. The court also considered the individual circumstances of each appellant, including their backgrounds, the extent of their involvement in the drug trafficking offences, and the mitigating factors that were presented on their behalf. The court found that the appellants had shown remorse and had cooperated with the police investigation, and that their involvement in the drug trafficking offences was not at the highest level. However, the court also found that the appellants had been involved in a significant drug trafficking operation, and that their conduct had caused significant harm to the community.
The court reduced the sentences imposed by the trial judge, taking into account the principles of sentencing and the individual circumstances of each appellant. The court found that the sentences imposed by the trial judge were excessive, and that the appellants should receive sentences that reflected the seriousness of their offending, while also taking into account the mitigating factors that were presented on their behalf. The court ordered that the sentences be reduced, with Riley receiving a sentence of six years and six months imprisonment, Airey receiving a sentence of five years imprisonment, and Broadby receiving a sentence of three years and eight months imprisonment.
The court made orders for the appellants to be returned to custody to serve their reduced sentences. The court also ordered that the appellants be eligible for parole after serving two-thirds of their sentences. The court noted that the appellants had shown remorse and had cooperated with the police investigation, and that their reduced sentences reflected this. The court emphasised the importance of deterring and punishing drug trafficking offences, while also taking into account the individual circumstances of each offender.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.